Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering Jamia Hamdard New Delhi 110062, India · Engineering Science Homi Bhabha National Institute Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400094, Maharashtra, India Computer and Informatics Group Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700064, West Bengal, India · Department of Computer Science and Business Systems Gargi Memorial Institute of Technology Affiliated to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology Balarampur, Mouza Beralia, Baruipur, Kolkata 700144, West Bengal, India
Federated wearable models eventually serve people absent from source training, but favorable average accuracy does not establish that unlabeled onboarding helps each person. We evaluate six core onboarding strategies on five wearable datasets under a leakage-controlled protocol that fixes source checkpoints, estimates normalization from source data only, separates calibration from evaluation recordings, and performs inference over held-out people rather than windows, devices, or random seeds. Completing all eligible HHAR and PAMAP2 outer-person rotations materially changes the conclusion obtained from the original frozen fold. On HHAR, balanced accuracy on that single person is 95.6-97.2% across methods versus 78.3-83.0% over all nine users, a reduction of 13.8-17.8 percentage points (pp). The displayed mean leader changes on both datasets, while paired leader-runner bootstrap intervals include zero and do not resolve a superior method. No adaptive core mechanism combines positive mean gain in all five datasets with zero seed-averaged person-level losses greater than 2 percentage points (pp). FedBN has one such loss and ATP-style adaptation has eight; Feature-only has none after seed averaging, but its exact one-sided 95% upper bound is 7.6%. A complementary seed-person stress audit records 4, 22, and 10 harmful realizations out of 114 for FedBN, ATP-style, and Feature-only, respectively; these are repeated realizations, not independent participants. Tail quality, calibration availability, and fall-window specificity reveal additional failures hidden by mean accuracy. The study therefore provides an auditable development benchmark and failure map rather than a universal-superiority or deployment-safety claim.
Figures & tables
Dataset/task
Local input
Win./stride
C
n
Tier
Unit
HHAR/HAR
6-axis acc.+gyro.
128/64
6
9
H
user
PAMAP2/HAR
chest+ankle, 12-axis
128/64
9
8
H
subject
WISDM/HAR
3-axis accelerometer
128/64
6
7
H
user
SisFall/HAR+fall
6-axis inertial
200/100
34
8
H
subject
UniMiB/HAR+fall
3-axis accelerometer
151/native
17
6
H
subject
UP-Fall derivative
33-joint xyz skeleton
20/20
binary impact
1
D
subject
Table 1: Frozen local artifacts and primary outer-unit coverage. Window length and stride are in samples; C is the local class count. H denotes headline development evidence and D descriptive evidence.
Figure 1: Seed-averaged participant BA for the two complete rotations. Boxes mark each row’s numerical maximum; they do not denote statistically significant superiority. The original fold is row U0/P0
Domain
Method
Mean gain [95% CI] (pp)
NT
MH
Worst (pp)
HHAR
FedBN-recal.
+39.4[+35.2,+43.7]
0.0%
0.0%
+30.7
ATP-style
+3.4[+0.9,+6.7]
22.2%
0.0%
−1.0
Feature-only
+1.5[+0.5,+2.7]
11.1%
0.0%
−0.5
PAMAP2
FedBN-recal.
+24.5[+12.2,+35.8]
12.5%
12.5%
−8.2
ATP-style
−2.6[−5.6,+0.2]
75.0%
62.5%
−9.9
Feature-only
+0.2[−0.3,+0.8]
37.5%
0.0%
−1.4
Table 3: Adaptive-method utility and harm at 32 calibration windows.
Figure 2: Balanced accuracy across calibration budgets for fully rotated HHAR and PAMAP2. Points are outer-unit means and error bars are sample SD, not standard errors. Static controls repeat their zero-shot predictions
Domain
Method
Sens. (%)
Spec. (%)
Prec. (%)
F1 (%)
SisFall
FedAvg
52.9
94.5
54.9
40.6
FedPer-GH
55.3
93.9
53.8
41.3
FedPer-matched
59.4
94.4
54.4
43.7
FedBN-recal.
41.7
95.1
59.3
36.0
ATP-style
52.5
93.4
55.4
40.5
Feature-only
51.6
94.7
55.4
40.2
Table 4: Grouped fall/non-fall window performance at 32 calibration windows: unweighted outer-unit means, reported as percentages. UP-Fall is descriptive.
Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition (HAR) models often degrade on unseen users due to domain shifts caused by individual movement patterns and sensor placement. Practical wearable HAR systems therefore require personalization methods that are lightweight, applicable across diverse calibration scenarios, and robust under limited calibration data. We present BayaHAR, a gradient-free framework that repurposes pretrained HAR classifiers as Prototypical Networks using prior prototypes that preserve zero-shot performance while regularizing adaptation. For labeled calibration data, we introduce closed-form Bayesian prototype estimation and extend the same principle to weakly labeled data, requiring only knowledge of which activities were performed. With only 3 seconds of calibration (one shot) per activity, supervised adaptation improves test macro-F1 on unseen users by +2.76 to +33.44 percentage points across four datasets, while weakly supervised adaptation improves by +0.56 to +32.13 points. Since adaptation requires only closed-form prototype updates, the framework enables efficient and robust on-device personalization of preexisting HAR classifiers.
Maximilian Burzer, Till Riedel, Michael Beigl +1
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Karlsruhe, Germany · IPAI Foundation gGmbH Heilbronn, Germany
Federated learning (FL) trains a shared model from updates contributed by distributed clients, often implicitly assuming that contributing clients are representative of the target population. In practice, this representativeness assumption can fail at two distinct stages, inducing selection bias. First, eligibility rules such as device constraints, software requirements, or user consent determine which clients are ever enrolled and reachable for training, inducing enrollment bias. Second, among enrolled clients, user and system factors such as battery state, network status, and local time determine which clients participate in each communication round, inducing participation bias. Although existing work has largely addressed round-level participation bias, it has paid far less attention to population-level enrollment bias, which can induce a persistent mismatch between the training objective and the target-population objective. We formalize FL under a two-stage selection model and derive FedIPW, an inverse-probability-weighted aggregation scheme that recovers the target-population mean update under standard ignorability and positivity assumptions. Because client-level covariates are often unavailable for non-enrolled clients, we also introduce a limited-information aggregate-calibration extension that uses known target-population summaries to reweight the enrolled sample, partially correcting enrollment bias. We further provide an algorithm-agnostic optimization analysis under residual weighting error and show that incomplete selection correction can induce a non-vanishing bias floor. Finally, experiments on synthetic federated logistic regression validate the predicted objective mismatch and show that enrollment correction reduces target-population error under two-stage selection.
Gota Morishita
Centre for Brain, Mind and Markets University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria, Australia
The federated learning (FL) paradigm fosters distributed pervasive computing combined with artificial intelligence techniques, allowing for optimized data usage and improved mitigation of privacy concerns. Indeed, model training occurs on the client's local devices, and model parameters are subsequently shared with a centralized server. However, there is a need to find a tradeoff between models' personalization and generalization capabilities. In this paper, we design and implement several testing scenarios devoted to evaluating and comparing the centralized, local, and federated paradigm performances. We also design and implement a scenario that emulates a change in clients' data. We then present experimental results of the FedAvg algorithm applied to the Human Activity Recognition (HAR) domain to understand the trade-off between personalized and generalized accuracy. Results show that, although FedAvg confirms a higher degree of personalization capabilities while keeping a high degree of generalization with respect to the traditional centralized learning, this result is not so obvious under stressful conditions, such as when varying class distribution over clients.
Andrea De Luna, Susanna Peretti, Chiara Contoli +1